DoubleB wrote:If I say it out loud it is oral. I absolutely don't care if someone is gay. That said, obviously repubs care - they cannot stand gays, women, minorities, non-Christians (as defined by repubs) and anyone other than repub white men, the older and richer the better.

There. Wish fulfillment is my goal, Boss302 and 3F.

Do you even know any Republicans?

Obama understands his constituents perfectly. They don't care what he does to the Constitution, the economy or his "enemies," as long as he provides them with gay marriage, legalized weed and a recharged EBT card the first of every month.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Regardless on if it is the states job to define marriage, the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protects still applies to the states. And since every states treats married people differently than non-married people they must allow same sex marriage.

"The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War."- from WikipediaSince when were same sex couples slaves?

Oh, Please. you have got to be kidding me.

The 14th amendment applies to EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN, not just former slaves.

CarpaDM wrote:It says "rights equal to those of white citizens". That, in and off itself, means the amendment was for former slaves who were black. It says nothing about same sex couples. That is left to the states to decide and now the court wishes to strip that right from the Constitution. If a state wants to offer marriage to same sex couples, sobeit. But, follow the Constitution. The Supremes should stay out of it.

The 14th amendment makes no such distinction. It applies to every American citizen.

CarpaDM wrote:It says "rights equal to those of white citizens". That, in and off itself, means the amendment was for former slaves who were black. It says nothing about same sex couples. That is left to the states to decide and now the court wishes to strip that right from the Constitution. If a state wants to offer marriage to same sex couples, sobeit. But, follow the Constitution. The Supremes should stay out of it.

The 14th amendment makes no such distinction. It applies to every American citizen.

Stop being such a doofus

Actually, the 14th amendment not only applies to every American citizen, it says:

(N)or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

CarpaDM wrote:It says "rights equal to those of white citizens". That, in and off itself, means the amendment was for former slaves who were black. It says nothing about same sex couples. That is left to the states to decide and now the court wishes to strip that right from the Constitution. If a state wants to offer marriage to same sex couples, sobeit. But, follow the Constitution. The Supremes should stay out of it.

The 14th amendment makes no such distinction. It applies to every American citizen.

Stop being such a doofus

I was replying to Sal's response to me. He supplied to me that statement of "rights equal to those of white citizens". Using that sentence, it is saying that blacks now have those same rights and, of course, it applies to others as well within the jurisdication. Still, how do you get same sex "marriage rights" out of the 14th amendment? It would take a "doofus" to think that you do. If you think so, why wouldn't marriage rights apply to a father and his adult daughter, or a mother and her adult son, or father an his adult son if they choose to marry? Aren't they America citizens too? Those matters go back to the states to decide, not to the Supreme Court and then find rights somehow in their interpretation of the Constitution. Wouldn't it be wise to go back and read what the meaning of the 14th amendment was back in 1868 and not make it up as you wish?

The legal marriage that sodomites want will not necessarily get them the respect and justice and acceptance that they hope for. The law will be on their side, but changing the law of God is another matter (consider banning the Bible if you want that). It will be a hard-won victory; the wedding cake they force the Christian baker to deliver will arrive with tears of bitterness. What benefit is that?

DoubleB wrote:If I say it out loud it is oral. I absolutely don't care if someone is gay. That said, obviously repubs care - they cannot stand gays, women, minorities, non-Christians (as defined by repubs) and anyone other than repub white men, the older and richer the better.

There. Wish fulfillment is my goal, Boss302 and 3F.

Democrats hate heterosexuals, men, caucasians, Christians (except faux-Christians like Obama) and families and babies and independent thinkers and people with initiative and anyone who doesn't have a hyphen in their name.

Denvertodd wrote:The legal marriage that sodomites want will not necessarily get them the respect and justice and acceptance that they hope for. The law will be on their side, but changing the law of God is another matter (consider banning the Bible if you want that). It will be a hard-won victory; the wedding cake they force the Christian baker to deliver will arrive with tears of bitterness. What benefit is that?

DoubleB wrote:If I say it out loud it is oral. I absolutely don't care if someone is gay. That said, obviously repubs care - they cannot stand gays, women, minorities, non-Christians (as defined by repubs) and anyone other than repub white men, the older and richer the better.

There. Wish fulfillment is my goal, Boss302 and 3F.

Democrats hate heterosexuals, men, caucasians...

Yep, becoming a Democrat was an act of self-loathing for this heterosexual, caucasian male...

Dude, you REALLY troll poorly.

Last edited by Boss302 on April 10th, 2014, 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Denvertodd wrote:The legal marriage that sodomites want will not necessarily get them the respect and justice and acceptance that they hope for. The law will be on their side, but changing the law of God is another matter (consider banning the Bible if you want that). It will be a hard-won victory; the wedding cake they force the Christian baker to deliver will arrive with tears of bitterness. What benefit is that?

DoubleB wrote:If I say it out loud it is oral. I absolutely don't care if someone is gay. That said, obviously repubs care - they cannot stand gays, women, minorities, non-Christians (as defined by repubs) and anyone other than repub white men, the older and richer the better.

There. Wish fulfillment is my goal, Boss302 and 3F.

Democrats hate heterosexuals, men, caucasians...

Yep, becoming a Democrat was an act of self-loathing for this heterosexual, caucasian male...

Dude, you REALLY troll poorly.

I'm thinking the trolls called in their merry band of fellow trollers and sock puppets to utilize the thumbs-down any posts with a shred of sanity/decency in them...

Denvertodd wrote:The legal marriage that sodomites want will not necessarily get them the respect and justice and acceptance that they hope for. The law will be on their side, but changing the law of God is another matter (consider banning the Bible if you want that). It will be a hard-won victory; the wedding cake they force the Christian baker to deliver will arrive with tears of bitterness. What benefit is that?

Cafeteria Christians pick and choose which parts of the Scriptures they want to invoke, while conveniently ignoring the parts that contradict their personal choices. I don't see anyone down at Divorce Court protesting. I don't see anyone rallying to overturn no fault divorce laws.

This is a secular society. We don't operate on Sharia law or God's laws. We police ourselves with man's law. Don't invoke religious doctrine as an excuse to discriminate.

If equality is the goal here, why is the government permitted to treat married people differently from single people. Are single people second-class citizens? Why give special benefits and rights to married people that the government denies to single people?

It seems rather obvious that the laws giving special rights to married people violate the 14th amendment. Therefore, those laws should be eliminated. That would be true equality. So no special filing status for married couples or tax exemptions for leaving an estate to a spouse. Everybody pays the same taxes; everybody has exactly the same rights.